Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28055035›Full record

ReviewNature protocols2017

DNA sequencing technologies: 2006-2016.

Elaine R Mardis

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature protocols, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 138 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
138citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

138 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Regulation Ratio: A Singular Multi-Omic Measurement of Gene Regulatory Mechanisms.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026
    Article
  18. Unveiling genomic rearrangements in engineered iPSC lines by optical genome mapping.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

78 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Elaine R MardisMcDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in the field of genomics have largely been due to the ability to sequence DNA at increasing throughput and decreasing cost. DNA sequencing was first introduced in 1977, and next-generation sequencing technologies have been available only during the past decade, but the diverse experiments and corresponding analyses facilitated by these techniques have transformed biological and biomedical research. Here, I review developments in DNA sequencing technologies over the past 10 years and look to the future for further applications.

Indexed as

AnimalsDNAHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansSequence Analysis, DNAStatistics as TopicDNA

Identifiers

PMID28055035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.